Monday, July 09, 2007

The Linwood Wilson Deposition

The idea that Linwood Wilson—a figure who, the N&Onoted, faced “repeated complaints and at least seven formal inquiries into his conduct” as a private investigator—ever could have been the chief investigator for a district attorney would seem possible only in the Wonderland that is Durham.

The Wilson deposition to the Bar suggested that the (now-fired) investigator didn’t suddenly develop an ethical core when he went under oath. He alternated between scarcely credible and wholly non-credible assertions as he explained his involvement in the lacrosse case—which began with the arrest of Seligmann alibi witness Moezeldin Elmostafa and ended with SANE nurse Tara Levicy “remembering” that Crystal Mangum was uncertain about whether her “attackers” used condoms.

The December 21st Interview

Nowhere was the ex-investigator less credible than in his discussion of the Dec. 21st “interview” with Mangum. In that interview, which was untaped and which Wilson conducted alone, Mangum told an entirely new story, one that conveniently seemed to cover many of the yawning gaps in the evidence.

What necessitated the interview on December 21st, one day after Nifong received notice from the Bar that it was considering an ethics complaint against him for withholding DNA evidence? Wilson: “There were some discrepancies between what Kim Roberts had said and what Crystal Mangum had said,” as well as between Mangum’s various versions of events and the time-stamped party photos broadcast by MSNBC’s Dan Abrams. Both sets of discrepancies, Wilson said, needed to be cleared up.

Indeed. There had been “some discrepancies” between what Mangum and Roberts had said since March 22, 2006, when Roberts gave her statement to police. And there had been “discrepancies” between what Mangum’s stories and the time-stamped photos since April 2006, when Abrams first broadcast the photos.

Why did Wilson and Nifong wait eight months to try to resolve these discrepancies? Wilson didn’t say. Why was it so important to address this issue four days before Christmas, without any member of the Durham Police present for the interview? Wilson, again, didn’t say.

How, then, did the “interview” wind up creating a wholly new version of events?

According to Wilson, Mangum was having “flashbacks,” and then, during his visit, “she just started talking” about them. (I’m not making this up.) As an officer of the law, he felt duty bound to write down these flashbacks—but not to tape the conversation, nor to ask any questions about the obvious contradictions this new version of events revealed. He said he didn’t feel it was “appropriate” to do so at that time.

After the “flashback” session ended, Wilson decided to show Mangum some of the party photos. But as he opened his briefcase, he just happened to have the photos from the April 4 lineup (which were then the subject of a suppression motion). And, further, he just happened to have Dave Evans’ photo in plain sight. And, even further, Mangum just happened to know Evans’ name. And, further still, Mangum just happened to remember that on the night of the party Evans didn’t have a mustache—as Mangum had claimed on April 4 and the defense had recently disproved with photos from the time—but a five o’clock shadow.

The reaction of Katherine Jean, who was conducting the deposition for the Bar, dripped with incredulity, even on the transcript.

Investigatory Skills

Wilson brought along for the deposition evidence of the “investigation” carried on by the Nifong team. This “investigation” waited over a year to speak to the neighbors of 610 Buchanan—who told Ben Himan that the lacrosse players’ most grievous offense was an inability to park cars correctly(!). At the same time, Wilson and Nifong appear to have been remarkably interested in random e-mails from unknown parties (such as “Becky Lane, Ph.D.”) offering theories that could support their hope that a crime actually occurred.

Despite Nifong’s claim on the stand that he had relieved Wilson from interviewing witnesses at an undetermined time in late 2006 or early 2007, as of the date of his deposition (May 23, 2007, or three weeks before the DA made the assertion under oath), Wilson declared that this role remained part of his job description: “I interview witnesses if the assistant district attorney requests that I do that.”

In a follow-up question from Katherine Jean, Wilson confirmed the point. Had his duties, Jean asked, “been the same since you became the investigator in October of ’06?” Wilson’s response: “They have.”

Wilson also wanted it known that—throughout the case—he initiated nothing. “I didn’t,” he informed Jean, “do anything on my own.” The message: if he committed misconduct, it’s the fault of whoever ordered him to do something improper. (Wilson contradicted this claim later in the deposition, when he conceded that he had initiated a meeting with Mangum to discuss the first 60 Minutes broadcast.)

Wilson’s admitted role, in any event, was considerable: Nifong tasked him with “re-interviewing” every witness in the case, including every police officer who had any contact with Mangum. Neither the ex-DA nor his ex-investigator ever said why witnesses needed to be “re-interviewed,” and, if so, what qualified Wilson to perform such an important job.

Moreover, as Joe Neff’s Sunday article revealed, Wilson claimed that part of his job was coordinating an internal affairs investigation of Sgt. John Shelton—the only member of the Durham Police who got the case right from the start and recognized that Mangum was lying.

Himan

According to Wilson, Himan—not Wilson or Nifong—was running the investigation throughout the fall.

This was news to Katherine Jean, who asked Wilson how many interviews he and Himan did together. “Every interview I was involved in,” proclaimed Wilson.

Well, except for those of “the police officers Barfield, Sutton, Stewart, Shelton, [and] Jones.” And except for “the December 21st interview of Crystal Mangum.” And except for “the interview of Kim Roberts in July where she was in our office.”

Oh.

Wilson on Nifong

Wilson stated that he had “always thought that [Nifong] was a very ethical person.” Coming from a person with Wilson’s own dubious ethical record, perhaps this character reference wasn’t terribly valuable for the ex-DA.

Meanwhile, the ex-investigator described the ex-DA as someone who “does pay attention to details”—an image wholly contrary to Nifong’s self-portrayal of a figure who couldn’t be bothered to read documents fundamental to the case in the course of nine months.

Wilson and DNA

Wilson wanted Jean to know that if there was a conspiracy to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence, he wasn’t a party to it. In fact, he told her, the first he had heard of this information came in court on December 15.

How could he be sure? Because “I’ve never read Dr. Meehan’s report that I know of.”

This was the same Linwood Wilson who, on the courthouse steps in June, interrupted Joe Cheshire’s press conference to declare “that he personally read all 1814 pages of discovery documents”—documents that included, among other items, Dr. Meehan’s report.

Elmostafa

Wilson’s description of his involvement in the Elmostafa arrest was comical. Liestopperssummed it up: “Anonymous or unknown tipster from within DA’s office or maybe the Clerk’s office leads Wilson to warrant by suggesting that Elmostafa may have written a bad check(!). He presents warrant in meeting with Gottlieb, Himan, Nifong, and Candy Clark. Alternately, he or Nifong hands warrant to Himan or Gottlieb. Wilson didn’t expect Himan and Gottlieb to serve the warrant themselves.”

While he couldn’t recall the identity (or even the gender) of the anonymous tipster, and he didn’t remember if he spoke with this person or simply received a message from him/her, Wilson did recall with precision that the tipster told him to “check for a worthless check” on Elmostafa.

When asked whether he recalled any discussions about whether the arrest and prosecution of Elmostafa might be perceived as retaliatory, Wilson replied that he believed that such conversations did occur—but he could remember no additional details. “I don’t specifically recall having that conversation with Mr. Nifong,” Wilson reported—though “I’m not saying I didn’t.”

As Wilson spent his time on attempting to discredit an innocent bystander who had come forward to tell the truth and not remembering conversations he might or might not have had with Nifong, he found out that Crystal Mangum had previously claimed to have been gang raped not from his investigatory work—but from the AP, which broke the story.

At Nifong’s request, Wilson then traveled to Creedmoor, where the alleged incident occurred, to attend the press conference at which Creedmoor town officials discussed Mangum’s never-pursued claim. According to Wilson, the only person involved in the case who thought this incident might affect Mangum’s credibility was Officer Himan.

Two ex-Creedmoor police officers currently work for the Durham Police Department. Wilson said that in early May 2006, he looked into contacting them to see whether they had any more information about the alleged crime. More than eight months later, when Nifong recused himself from the case, Wilson hadn’t gotten around to speaking with either officer. Why not? The ex-investigator blamed Himan for not setting up the meeting.

Wilson the Skeptic

Wilson claimed that, from the start, he harbored doubts about whether Mangum was telling the truth. He pressed Nifong to ask her to take a polygraph.

There were, of course, no witnesses to corroborate Wilson’s alleged skepticism.

---------

For those who argue that Nifong has been punished enough, the Wilson deposition is Exhibit A on the necessity for a criminal investigation. The descriptions above came from a man who did everything he could, for nearly a year, to use the power of the state to send to jail three demonstrably innocent people, for a crime that they not only didn’t commit but never occurred.

It is definitely cover your ass time in Wonderland. With Nifong now history and Wilson having come to the realization that he will never work in law enforcement again, all the ususal suspects are now doing anything they can to deflect blame and avoid being criminally prosecuted.

Just when I think I have caught up with the depositions, I have another 130+ pages to read. A few points from the various depositions:

1. The number one issue now is Mangum. That she was following the case and trying to shore up her own tainted ID of Evans, Finnerty and Selgimann shows to me that she needs to be incarcerated.

2. As with Gottlieb, I hope any defendant that has Himan testifying against them has an attorney that counts up the number of questions their memories fail them on in these deposition on the most important case in Durham in history and asks the jury if they really think they can trust the memory of someone whose memory is as faulty as in these depositions.

3. The scope of these depositions was limited, but Himan is back on my bad guy list for this case unless he is willing to come completely clean about what was going on.

4. I can not believe that for a bar hearing grand jury testimony is off limits. Surely the law in NC is not that foolish?

5. I think one of the depositions I have read, maybe Nifong's, backs up Wilson claim to have suggested a polygraph of Mangum. I believe Nifong said basically in his deposition what Wilson claimed he said to him.

6. More and more I think that while self interest was a huge part of Nifong seeking charges in the beginning, he hoisted himself on his own leftist petard and was unable to get out of this case and save his career because of his PC views of anyone who cries rape.

7. How did this bunch of idiots think they could get away with what they did to the cabbie? That is possibly the stupiest stunt they pulled in the whole case.

Trying to railroad three entirely innocent young men into prison for no reason except personal ambition is always deeply immoral; however, when the case is extra-ordinarily weak and the defendants can fight back it is stupid and immoral. If,in addition, the whole world is watching and swarms of extremely alert and articulate bloggers are following every detail - doing so needs a new word in English that describes stupidity of an almost cosmic grandeur. This might be a key to understanding why the prosecution kept coming out with an apparently endless stream of contradictions and impossible scenarios. That is, "Stupid projects are embraced by stupid people - who then proceed in a stupid fashion."

...The reaction of Katherine Jean, who was conducting the deposition for the Bar, dripped with incredulity, even on the transcript.::Ah. The old flash back theory of the 1960-1970's. I almost forgot about flash backs.

Katherine Jean must be younger.

The G88 who are the freeze dried hippies delegation must have met in desperation at one of their member's homes; formed a circle in the living room or den; fired up the incense; smoked a little grass and while humming the main theme from Janice Joplin's 'Me & Bobby McGee'... 'Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'...remembered ...Flash Backs.

Of course. FLASH BACKS!

Perhaps Cy or Dean Sue was there and transmitted this revelation to Precious, bless her heart.

Linwood (Old Man River) Wilson who had by this time, decided with respect to this hoax, that Freedom IS TRULY just another word for nothing left to lose...appreciated the support.

Either Himan or Wilson in lying. Who has the motivation to lie? Wilson. By showing the 4/4/06 lineup pictures to Precious, he was attempting to illegally gauge her ability to handle the then-upcoming Suppression Hearing.

It was illegal because if the 4/4/06 lineup was suppressed, which it most certainly would have been, any promptings of Crystal's memory based on that lineup (i.e. with pictures from the lineup) would be "fruit of the poisonous tree."

3. I believe the Becky Lane, Ph.D., referenced by Linwood Wilson in his deposition, is the same Becky Lane who is on the Board of Directors of the Lesbian Resource Center in the Triangle. The information I found is at

www.trianglelrc.org/about.html

It is nice to know, thank god, that Becky Lane appears to be a "regular" lesbian and not a super lesbian like dear Ms. Rudy. It is interesting that the Lesbian Resource Center would, early on, jump to assist Nifong. Based on the deposition, I gathered that they offered to get services for Mangum, not prosecute the Duke boys.

4. "Some folk'll never eat a skunk, but then again some folk'll,like Linwood the slack-jawed yokel."

The fact that KC - in the midst of relating all of Linwood Wilson's horrific actions - must stop and turn to the reader to plead "I'm not making this up" describes accurately the utter insanity of Durham. The terror of that insanity, however, is that not only did this corrupt investigator defy common sense, for nearly a year he was given the power to defy the law and moral decency as he tried to jail three innocent young men for a crime he knew had never happened. A year!

BTW, one bit of big news in this deposition is that Levicy no longer worked at Duke in January and Wilson and Himan were having to contact her via her attorney.

This certainly makes some of the foolish rantings about Levicy on other sites look even more foolish to me. Sure she is biased, but she was hardly running to them to try to save the case in January as come have claimed, if she had retained an attorney and they had trouble finding her.

More proof that punishing Nifong can't stop at simply wresting away the power he had to ruin lives.

It can't end with "oh he resigned," for what he did and tried to do till the very last minute.

Hijacking a police investigation. Using a hand-picked "investigator" with blind loyalty and indifference to law as his only skills. Refusing to read the evidence he had. Or that was offered. Igniting a racial issue where there was none for his own ends. Concealing the DNA evidence.

This is so beyond the usual mere incompetence of a public employee he MUST be pursued: taking away his power to ruin lives is hardly enough. He must make good what he has done to the extent he can be made to do so.

That involves more than simply living on a pension less than he had hoped for. Every prosecutor everywhere needs to understand that this is not going to be punished only be premature retirement and a book deal.

When I was Tara Levicys age I was deeply involved with a lot of stupid notions; so I cannot really hate her for being the same way. In a certain sense, she was just unlucky in that her naive phase overlapped with the most important, consequential SANE exam she will ever have performed in her whole life. Later on, when her brain starts working, maybe she will offer something like an apology. That will be the moment of definition. If she actually does that, I will vote to take her name off the "enablers of the hoax list". Time will tell.

The hits just keep on coming. You are right; you cannot make this up. No publisher would accept such a work of fiction, as the scenario would be so unbelievable that even John Grisham could not create such a plot.

Linwood Wilson is dirty, period. Yes, we need criminal investigations. That is one reason I believe we are seeing such a backlash from leaders of the black community. People like Barber are desperately trying to scare away Roy Cooper and others from taking on such an investigation, sending the message that if they do a criminal investigation, they will lose black votes.

Another troubling thing is with regard to the "bad check" charge,initiating the investigation into Mr. Elmostafa: this is the legal equivalent of being pulled over for"probable cause." (bad blinker light, driving too slow etc.)Normally, though, the officer has to actually observe something thatmakes him/her suspicious.

The question is: who reported it (Cy Geurnsey?) Could have been anyone at Crimestoppers?

Big Question Do people just randomly stop in at the DPD and say:"I think you should investigate this man because he spit on asidewalk 13 years ago?"

They drop everything and assign an investigator to a bad check charge?

They likely thought they were producing a "probable cause" defense of the arrest, but it looks all the more like a set-up.

So Linwood read all 1,800 pages of the the notes on the case, huh? It's amazing to think of all the reading that the Wilsons did on this case.

He should get together with that other Wilson idiot -- the Duffer -- and they could, I'm sure, have a meaningful conversation about those interesting notations on page 1392.

My bet is that Linwood Wilson hasn't read a total of 1,800 pages in his whole adult life. His claim to have read the entire file on this case is just another lie in a typical day at the office for Mr. Gospel.

Gary - I hate to see hippies insulted by being likened to the 88. Hippies wanted to live in a world of hedonism and pleasure and avoided the concept of blame. 88 live in a world of blame. Without the concept of blame the 88 would evaporate. Huge difference.

She may not, however, on the advice of counsel. Remember that Nifongmade the claim that Levicy "guided" Dr. Manley through the exam.

I warned Levicy to get an attorney:looks like she followed the advice.When this gets to the criminal charge stage, and Nifong is REALLYtrying to find a convenient bus to throw someone under...

Not to say Levicy hasn't made mistakes, some that perhaps gave aide-and-comfort to the Nifonistas,and perhaps helped keep the Hoax alive...but she was not the primary hoaxer like the 88 andthe DPD and Nifong and MSM.

KC, fair is fair! Give Mr. Nifong equal time on this blog to defend himself. You are rushing to judgement. Likewise, Mr. Linwood Wilson deserves like consideration. I hope he records a gospel song about injustice to Christians.

What seems to be overarching in this entire matter is a shared world view that would not allow the very innocent lacrosse players to be innocent. This view required the players be guilty. The howling mob of academics Wood or Lubianno or Rudy and the rest of the Duke Group88 hiding under the guiese of PhD enlightenmen and hiding their own mean spirited racial/sexist bigotry in plain view of academic texts had already helped to set this world view in place, and having created it, they participated in implementation. Some like Nifong and wife are part of these "believers." They are the "something happened" crowd. Wilson, on the other hand, is just one of the underlings who joined the party for the drippings of remuneration and pieces of silver made available to him. Nevertheless, he was their important tool . . . one of the guards at camp following orders.

The last I read, Levicy was still on the web page for DUMC. Does anybody know where she is know? After watching Hudson's dealings with Nifong, I just see no hope for justice in Wonderland. This whole case is so bad and the Easley/Cooper show won't do anything. I won't visit NC ever again. I can't afford to get charged with felony speeding or felony littering. It is almost enough to give one nightmares.

Gary - I hate to see hippies insulted by being likened to the 88. Hippies wanted to live in a world of hedonism and pleasure and avoided the concept of blame. 88 live in a world of blame. Without the concept of blame the 88 would evaporate. Huge difference. ::I was in graduate school in 1970 and I remember my Hippie neighbors and their friends rather well.

They reminded me often that they lived in a world of pleasure without blame as long as society provided all the entitlements they requested...to include free health care, transportation and the freedom not to pay taxes.

1)Desperate Professors--a sit-com about pathetic college professors trying to advance their "studies" agendas in a world or reasonable people. Of course, the profs will wear black hats (or caps) with their academic gowns.

2) Diagnosis Stupidity--the ins and outs of a city police department (more Barney Fifes than Sheriff Taylors) and the DA prosecuting some of the more (like Hamilton Burger--waiting and hoping for just one big break) bizarre cases.

"The world we've made, as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far, creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of thinking" ~ Albert Einstein.

or, more popularly...

"Insanity is when you keep doing the same things expecting different results". - Ruby Mae Brown, Rudyard Kipling, or Chinese Proverb.

Both remind me of the malaise that is the foundation of this hoax and the larger problems with the 88, President Brodhead, the MSM, and the abettors.

Both also make the point I was attempting to make about Paglia. The dogma of the 60's gave us the malaise we have in academia, the media, NGO's, etc. We are bearing the fruit from those failed social experiments.

Paglia is now refreshingly and correctly critical of the outcomes yet seems to deny that her open approach will somehow deliver a different outcome in the future. Hence my comment about her wanting a do-over.

Maybe she is insane? "Only the insane are sane in a world of insanity." - unknown.

Maybe the world is a bit more predicatable and not insane as we imagine.

Hi Gary - Maybe we knew different hippies? ;>) The ones I knew were more interested in self-sufficiency and dropping out of society rather than being a part of society and expecting entitlements and standing in line for a hand out.

to mac - there's no point in wondering "who" made the "anonymous call," as if there actually was some such thing!

Seems obvious to me that there was never any "call", that's why there's no log of it, no written records anywhere, nothing except Wilson saying "oh yeah, voices out of the air told me to go get elmo!"

This is the old "gee, I want to roust that guy but don't have nothin' on him, must be time for the old "anonymous call!" routine! Hey lookyme, I just got probable cause!"

If anybody ever wants to doublecheck the source - oh well, it was anonymous, dontcha know. No responsible judge would ever issue a warrant on anything this thin, and no responsible police investigator would launch an investigation on anything this thin - in large part because it's a very old, very dirty, and very stupid trick to try and pull.

As far as the question - "What did Wilson have to gain by his criminal behavior?" Here was a broke thug with a fascination with authority who'd lost his PI license and had nothing going for him (sorry bad gospel music fans) and all of a sudden he's offered a badge and a salary? Combine that with a complete lack of official supervision??? There's no one he wouldn't kill (if he'd been asked) to keep that gig going - that was his life's dream come true!

NJNP - it's foolish for me to try and treat a very complicated subjected in just a very few lines, but I'll try. I believe that the biggest problem with the humanities departments in major universities is that the field in general has already hit the limits of what can be done in a responsible, reasonable manner. The original conceit was present in the name "social science", which has never been scientific in any sense. This gave the false idea that, as in the real sciences, there was always more to learn, always "progression" to be made. In Chemistry, physics, bio-engineering, yes, this is true. In English and the rest of the humanities? Oh come on - the only honest "progress" would be to admit that most of the work done in the last 40 years has been crap and should be mulched.

The scholastic drive to publish and do something new leads to a huge problem: how does one get recognition when, in fact, there is nothing responsible or reasonable that is left to be done in the field? (except for teaching students, but what self-worshipping professor wants to stoop to THAT these days?)

This is what leads to "speciesism", "queer studies", and any number of ridiculous "specialties". Professors have to find something that is "theirs" to earn their name and tenure, and when there are no reasonable opportunites left, the unreasonable and the ridiculous beckon.

9:29That's true of art, too: many students in colleges and universities are taught that the real definition of "art" is whatis better described as "novel."Like photos of a crucifix in urine.Original? Maybe.

But what passes for art - (like Serrano's photo) - is better described as "novelty."

Would you accept a donation to your favorite cause in order that you continue your blog WHILE IN ISRAEL? I hear they have computers in Israel. I would contribute in order to avoid the withdrawal pains.

One artist won a nice review for his sculpture: "Male Bag,"(or was it "Mail Bag?")featuring a mail delivery bag with eyes drawn on it.

It was the equivalent of the oldsong:"If I told you you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?"

Yuk, yuk.

When sculpture has to rely upon clever titles, it's lost something.Strangely enough, the juried art show disallowed my entry, an alabaster sculpture of an octopus (which had already won an award at a non-juried show.)

9:29 wrote:The scholastic drive to publish and do something new leads to a huge problem: how does one get recognition when, in fact, there is nothing responsible or reasonable that is left to be done in the field?...This is what leads to "speciesism", "queer studies", and any number of ridiculous "specialties". Professors have to find something that is "theirs" to earn their name and tenure, and when there are no reasonable opportunites left, the unreasonable and the ridiculous beckon. ---I don't agree. What drives these people is a left wing agenda. Of course they expose themselves to criticism because there is no schalrship.

Random House's new book by CPaglia

Break, Blow, Burn: Camille Paglia Reads Forty-three of the World's Best Poems is destined to become a landmark. In it, America's premier intellectual provocateur explores and celebrates a series of great poems of the Western tradition, including some surprising discoveries of her own. She brings new energy and insight to our understanding of poems we already know, such as masterpieces by Shakespeare, Donne, Shelley, Dickinson, Lowell, and Plath. She leads us to appreciate the artistry of writers with whom we may not be familiar, such as Chuck Wachtel and Wanda Coleman. And she hails the songwriter Joni Mitchell as a major contemporary poet.

Daring, erudite, entertaining, and infused throughout with Paglia's inimitable style and passion, this beautifully written book--and the dazzling mind behind it--will entice readers to begin or renew a passionate engagement with poetry.---

Individuals continue to write books on A Lincoln, Washington, WWII, Churchill, etc. You cannot convince them there is nothing new to say. The reason the 88 and others pick their subjects is because they have a bias against anything western, so they look in the sewers.

You are confusing humanities, art, literature, drama, etc with social sciences, economics, political science, sociology, etc. You are in good company because apparently Duke has also confused the two since they have as literature profs writing about the organization of society rather than literature.

One of the more pleasing aspects of the Duke situation to me is that while probably left leaning, the social sciences profs have not been the leaders in 88 gangsters and the economists who tend to be the least left leaning have been among the leaders to moderate the situation.

I do not believe that exercising the old Elmo warrant was a legal problem in itself. The problems I have with it, and Linwood was complicit in these, were:

(1) Having the lead Duke LAX detective and his burly sidekick pick up Elmo. This is witness intimidation. Wilson admitted he was at least in the "chain of command" for this decision. Additionally, there was further intimidation with Himan and his burly sidekick showing up at Elmo's trial to further scare him. This is the stuff civil and criminal RICO complaints are made of.

(2) The lame cover-up attempted by Nifong in the media, that his office was just doing a routine background check on a potential trial witness. This was ridiculous because:

a. Wilson contradicted Nifong's claim by saying he got an anonymous tip. In other words, according to Nifong, it was an intentional background check done for all trial witnesses, but according to Wilson, it was an accidental "gift from god."

b. It was incredible to believe that the DA's office was doing a background check for potential trial witnesses 14 months BEFORE a potential trial. In the same vein, neither the DA's office nor the DPD knew about Mangum's Creedmoor allegations until a freaking media press conference.

c. Some folk'll never eat a skunk, but then again some folk'll, like Linwood the slack-jawed yokel.

P.S. I don't think we have proof Levicy ever lied. Yet. Thus far, she is protected by the fact that her words were taken down and used by proven, established and mind-numbingly pathological liars. We do have proof that she was put in a critical thinking position (which actually should have just been an evidence gathering position), and she lacked the ability to think critically. One risks failing to reach a proper conclusion if one eliminates some of the possible proper conclusions (i.e. rape victims never lie). Also, she brought her agenda to the workplace. She was on the Hoax bus, that is for certain.

What Levicy said was " I have never met a rape victim who lied." Maybe she has not - nor do we know, if that was two or two hundred and two woman, she met who claimed rape. We don/t know her agenda, let alone brought it to the workplace. There was no hoax bus - just Nifong using this event for votes - the LEs gathering evidence and telling lies. Whether forced or not, the DA wanted all hands on deck.

I would like a professional best-guess about the civil suits. When will they begin ---after criminal contempt hearing? Is anyone represetning Elmo with a case? Are we even sure the LAX will sue Nifong, DPD, etc.. and who else are probable (not just possible)targets...Wilson for sure, but also City of Durham? I'm trying to frame how this is likely to go down.

At the hearing, Levicy said she is a full time nurse in DUMC ED. We do know that kingsbury;s "5 to 9 meeting with Nifong" turned into two - eleven months apart with one of the detectives. We do know that the collection of rape kit materials done by Dr Manly and assisted by Levicy was done correctly and exonerated the team of DNA findings. At 7AM on the morning of 3/14, no one know this was "the most important Rape kit" ever done, yet it was done appropriately.

What is Levicy said to have lied about? From what I understand she said:

1. in her opinion Mangum's demeanor was consistent with having been raped.

2. in her opinion Mangum's physical condidion was consistent with having been raped.

Which of her opinions do you think were not her opinions? It is very hard to lie about ones own opinion. Mangum did have swelling according to the exam report.

Now certainly in retrospect Mangum's "pain" symptoms were out of proportion to her "injury" ie swelling. But for Levicy to have "lied" as some claim, she would have had to offer up an opinion that was not hers. Given her background, I certainly believe the opinions she offerred were the ones she held.

As for the no condum's statement, it is likely factually true that some rape victims don't know if their attacker was wearing a condom and notice likely on advice of her attorney she quickly elaborated on her statement a week later offerring at least three reasons INCLUDING THERE WAS NO RAPE as to why there might not be DNA from an accused on their alledged victim.

Basically, the get Levicy point of view seems to come from two groups:

A. The how dare anyone not immediately know our boys or my friends did not do this. Sorry, but those in that group hurt the cause on this and other aspects of the case by being way too close to the Duke Lacrosse players. [They are as one sided and biased as the NAACP, they just HAPPENED to be on the side that was right this time.]

B. Nurses who want to pretend SANEs are not really biased towards alledged victims and who are apparently worried that this case could harm the view of nurses as professionals. Sorry, but this case can not harm the general correct perceptions that SANEs in general are biased towards believeing anyone claiming rape.

Could the anonymous commenter who drops this same gem into every thread please post an explanation of it's purpose. No matter who KC's victim du jour is the name will end up in the above message. Someone called him "five o'clock Charlie" the other day which to me is perfect. Same ineffectual payload dropped off every day. In truth I don't know whose side he's on.

I think the SANE was always and is now, an unneeded sub speciality. This whole thing with Levicy, blew up because of two SANE nurses, trying to make this simple collection of rape kit materials look like brain surgery. Making nurses "look bad" is not a concern - at the current rate of nurisng shortage, there are not going to be to many to pick on, much longer. I am all for the Doctors doing their own dirty work.Rape is about dominance and power and not about lust.This SANe thing has got to be right up there, with the world's most boring jobs. Do the SANE nurses have an agenda - I don't know and don't care. I doublt it - it is just a job.

11:33 Both Dr Manly and Levicy signed the exam sheet. We don't know, but could be they signed the bottom of the sheet in reverse order. So what - THe AG did not mind or comment on the sheet, other than to say the exam proved there was no rape evidence.A general statement that "frequently rape victims" don't know if condums were used, is probably true. She did not say in this "instance." Condum residue would be picked up by the lab, anyway. I don't think she "fudged".

Anderson states "DUMC was part of the Duke University" settlement with absolutly no evidence, except his word. That will not work. Eventially we will know the truth, but not as yet.

Jul 9, 2007 12:24:00 PM

The next time you accuse me of lying, first know the facts. I did not make that up, but rather got the information from an unimpeachable source. Obviously, I cannot divulge who that source was, but this source who is very close to what is happening told me in direct response to a question that I asked specifically on this subject. This was authoritative, believe me.

Linwood Wilson plays the role of "Holy Roller" too stereotypically and so forms a cardboard cutout of a character giving the audience no chance to sympathize and so be drawn in on a role that otherwise could have been Shakespearian.

Oops! I keep forgetting that this is all not a work of bad fiction. I don't mean to disparage Christians because I'm Jewish and we have plenty of our own "Buffoons for God"(tm). But Linwood is a beautiful example of one side of evil: He'll belt out Gospel while persecuting the innocent and never a contradiction enters his own holy vision of himself.

The "beam in one's own eye before the mote in another" verse is probably known by heart but never would it occur to Linwood that it's talking about him. Pharisees are a quaint story, not a role he plays in his own truly dammed life. Ted Haggard on steroids couldn't do better.

He personifies a dimension of evil: "Dumb but sure of itself, never reflecting, never contrite". Sadly, he's very similar to much of politicized religion which is everything anything holy is not.

Anderson - Sorry, you word does not make it so. "Believe me" is always subject to exam and a questionable statement. I have been told on "good authority" that DUMC is not part of the settlement. At this point, without evidence, we do not know.

Every time I read or hear the mantra, "Rape is about dominance and power not lust," I cringe. I learned the meaning of the word rape before this assemblage of verbiage was trotted out. Rape is a word that can stand on its own. It stands without association with some sort of political connectedness that uses rape for its own purpose such as was the case even of this non-rape used to rape the Duke lacrosse team, and swellin' my ass (pun intended) . . . in the case of this individual's swellin' is part of doing business, and "What do you do for a living Ms. Mamgan? Hmmmmmmm, I think I detect swellin'. . . a little more or less than usual." "My goodness, rocket scientests . . . it is swellin'."

NO! This horse had surprising depth as a general commentary on justice and due process, but it's been pretty well beat to death. G88 will live on, some others will fall, Police dept may reform a tad" But it's starting to fade back to local mess rather than universal concerns.

I do like KC's persistence and analysis, but I'd much rather see him apply it with fresh eyes to the US, Israel and the situation in the middle east.

Should we be there? We seem to desire to foist elections on societies thinking that this is the road to liberty, the Duke case makes very clear that democracy is at best the first defense of due process and it is due process that protects our liberty, democracy protects due process.

Can we foist "due process" institutions on tribal societies? Is our presence in the Middle East in fact delaying their own (bloody) evolution towards establishing societies that could exhibit due process? What happened there and how has it helped or hurt the US.

There are much bigger issues for KC to deal with - I'd much rather follow a new blog on what he finds there.

It seems hardly unlikely that Duke finally getting the message would sign on to a settlement that was not seamless, ie. would not cover each and every part of their sorry asses up to and including every liability that they could sign off on in their settlement so that some part of exposed liability would not pull a thread that would expose the crap that they pulled. They don't want to know who signed off on the adds either.

Let us try to "foist" an investigation of the Durham Police Department and the Group88 to prove that this small act can be accomplished in a democracy as corrutpt as the one that exists at Duke University and its environs.

Linwood: I think Linwood did provide a turning point of some sort in the Hoax. This happened when he challenged Joe Cheshire about Mangum's consistency. Joe immediately and thoroughly beat him down like a redneck does to a carpet-defacing smellhound. At that time, even the dumber Hoaxters, such as Linwood, knew, or should have known, that a Frame was afoot.

Levicy: It is interesting to contrast the critical thinking skills of Shelton and Levicy. Shelton's mind was open to the possiblity that Mangum was lying. Levicy's was not. How can one rationally deal with a critical thinking problem when one or more of the possible answers in not a possible answer?

It reminds me of a problem I encountered early in life:

I had a 2nd grade teacher who did not believe in the numbers 5 through 29. He also refused to recognize the existence of the number 53, claiming it was (if hypothetically it did exist) a construct of a male-dominated capitalistic society. To this dayI have horrible difficulties dealing with basic elements of the multiplication table, and I still have not figured out the square root of 2,809. Oh, and the teacher also violated my student privacy rights.

K.C., Stay and play with us! We are more fun. Floyd says, "Moo." Gregory

One of the things that strikes me about the two statements of Crystal Mangum is what isn't there. Nowhere in any of her statements (that I have seen anyway) are the words; don't, stop, no, help, please no, etc. I have reviewed all of Mangum's many written and verbal statements to the police and nowhere does she stop and say, "I begged them not to do this....I told them I have children and asked them not to rape or kill me....I screamed no and they didn't stop....etc.

I cannot believe that this woman (who claimed she was raped, sodomized, strangled, punched, kicked and beaten) not pleading for mercy from her vicious attackers did not set off some red flags for the cops.

I know hindsight is 20/20 but there are so many reasons I (and obviously many others) didn't beleive her from the start. It's amazing this case made it as far as it did.

Wilson is clearly an evil person, but why unfairly castigate Christians in general?

As we look all around us, we see that men have feet of clay and usually cannot live up to their beleifs. There are plenty of Christians that fit that bill, but since one has already been mentioned lets go to the other side.

NYT- the paper of record- lots of scandels and cover-ups of their reporters either making up news or plagerizing works.

John Edwards - 2 Americas - $400 hair cuts, and now going on a "poverty tour." What one person has he helped?

Ruth Baider Ginsburg-- wants intergration, but in her years in the DC circuit, (Ithink 12 years), never hired a black.

H Clinton= Libby should be in jail. She forgot that Bill also lied to a Grand Jury and the nation-"I did not have...

Angelina Jolie- plays the wife of Danile Pearl= integrity and freedom of the press, and then bars certain reporters and demands that others sign an agreement before they can attend the news conference (she has since alologized, and blamed someone in the camp)

It is hard to walk the talk. What made me more honest was when my kids were teenagers. They didn't miss a beat, whenever they saw us not living up to our hype, they called us on it--the most honest years of my life!

Anon 7:28 is reminding readers that KC Johnson's singling out individuals to hold them accountable for their actions in the Hoax/Frame is nearly identical to the worst abuses of the 1947-1957 Red Scare.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy famously quipped, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." He went on to damage the careers of many innocent people, and worse.

In strikingly similar fashion, KC Johnson has suggested that the Hoax/Frame did not begin and end with the actions of ex-DA Nifong--an idea that all good people, Anon 7:28 included, have Rushed to Judge as transparently absurd.

Like McCarthy, Johnson offers no evidence to buttress his accusations (except for direct quotes, links to newspaper articles, sworn testimony, first-person experiences, correspondence, forensic reports, audiotapes, interviews, and the application of logic and plausibility to reconstructing timelines of events).

Just as there was neveranyevidence to suggest that Soviet agents were active in the United States, there is no reason to think that anyone besides Nifong played any part in the Hoax/Frame. Certainly not: others in the DA's office and the DPD, Duke administrators and faculty, potbangers and 'Wanted' poster authors, politicized medical staff, NYT reporters, drive-by pundits.

As Anon 7:28 implies in every recent comment thread, to suggest otherwise is to succumb to the darkest forces of Red-baiting.

When my daughter (about 2-3) was in the car, we used the opportunity to point out every number she could see from her seat:numbers on buildings, big trucks, billboards, traffic signs, etc. Some times we would explain what the signs were for, like speed limits.

One day when she was about 5, she asked if 47 was faster than 35. She could see my speedometer and we had just read the speed limit sign. I had to change my driving habits, or demonstrate the fine art of hypocrisy.

It also bothers me whenever I hear categorically is about power and not lust. That may be a true statement in some cases and not true in others.

Example - man dates girl, she invites him in, they make out, he gets horny, she says no after both have their clothes off, he restrains her and he enters her anyway - she doesn't struggle real hard which means he doesn't have to beat her up or knock her out or anything. THIS SCENARIO IS RAPE BUT IS IT ABOUT POWER. TAKE A LOOK AT AN ALTERNATE ENDING.

Man dates same girl, she invites him in, they make out, get horny and she says "I want you" - In that case the same guy and same girl spend 8 hours making love. He doesn't hold her down, restrain her,ignore who pleas etc. Apparenlty in both scenarios, satisfying his lust was his goal, not establishing his power.

Wilson is clearly an evil person, but why unfairly castigate Christians in general?

Jul 9, 2007 1:52:00 PM

Which is why I didn't, just the "Buffoons for God"(tm) kind. The kind who strut their holy stuff while doing public evil.

I don't really care if someone who is not especially touting family values, is caught with his pants down somewhere. That's human and it's damn human to lie about it when caught. I care more if he was doing his basic job, paying the bills, opening up trade, advancing science etc.

Same for the average Joe, might pray but not pay the taxman. Not good, but not especially evil either.

To me, it's completely different for a guy who has a public religious side line "singing and bringing for the lord" who is out there being the strong man enforcer and enabler to imprison the innocent for his own personal gain in career and power.

As for Gore, I'd vote for him if he were stupid enough to run. The guy really did see the potential for the internet before others, that's why he was an early board member on Google. He's an accomplished man, he's founded and run a very successful Current TV, he created a very successful movie, he personally increased his net wealth post vice-presidency from 1-2 million to about 100M. He's got substantial self-earned talent, he's intelligent. He likes wealth but buys offsetting carbon credits -- I don't, I could and should. I'd like to see someone intelligent and accomplished in office after the current ("holy") babe in the woods that we've got. I'd love to see Gore in office, but with at least the Senate or House controlled by Republicans. Then maybe we could get back to more limited government again, more science, leave "faith" to the people not to policy. I like intelligence in charge, with checks on it's power and action. Sounds good and I don't begrudge him his house, he bought it with his money and felt some guilt about it. Just fine.

Alas these letters to the editor and other public statements by DPD personnel have one goal in mind. That goal is not really to encourage the selection of Hodge, but rather to scare off other candidates and get Hodge by default. Who in their right mind would take this job when the staff is telling you they want someone else.

I would expect any day now for the withdrawals of candidates to begin. The Chief of DPD job would be tough enough without the staff warning you off.

Back in the '90s, I was working on a project and spent some time with one of the "city leaders" in Durham. While I was sitting in his office, he was on the phone coordinating who the council was going to select for its city manager--Lamont Ewell. He was black, of course, and as I recall, his tenure was about as impressive as Patrick Baker's.

Those people always work behind the scenes in a little clique.....and I have no doubt that there was a small group aiding Nifong to get the result they wanted before the AG came in and put a stop to the hoax.

You know, I had to go back and check the header, because I was almost sure that this was "Durham in Wonderland", a blog about the Duke lacrosse case. And sure enough, that's what it says, but I think someone must have messed up some HTML code, because some of these comments clearly are from the We Hate John Edwards and Anyone Associated With Him blog. Gee, I sure hope Blogger can straighten out the technical difficulties soon.

Go fly your own kite. You can't magically make all your political opinions subject matter for this blog by pretending they're all relevant to the lacrosse case. Or is Dick Cheney's drunken hunting "accident" suddenly relevant here? After all, this blog is for all things lacrosse-case-related, right?? And since Dick Cheney failed to step in and see that justice was done in the lacrosse case, that means it's open season on him here! Isn't this basically your excuse?

Your hijacking of the exposure of the hoax to serve your own political agenda is not any more respectable than the 88 hijacking the original accusations of the hoax to serve theirs.

Like most irrational partisans who hide behind "progressiveness", you are anything but.

You are no more clairvoyant than you are a stellar mass of grey matter. Sorry to report, but you are not dealing with a conservative or a Republican here, so untwist your panties and run along to lecture someone else.....as seems to be your tendency.

This isn't your blog any more than mine; however, you have shown yourself to be just another drifter trying to muzzle opposing opinions.

Nice try, little provincial one, but I'm about as interested in Dick Cheney as I am you.

Birds of a feather. Perhaps you can bring up Cheney's lesbian daughter the way Elizabeth Edwards did to desperately play for political points---which failed miserably. You haven't tried that one yet.

Like the syrupy and phony Mrs. Edwards--who is built like Ed Asner and should tend to her own business of getting in shape--your attempts to muzzle others will fail.

4:51Edwards is relevant in the same way other NC politicians (Dole et al) are relevant; it matters more that the Senator from North Carolina who hopes to be Presidentwhen he grows up would offer a word or two on the subject.

If Senator Obama can speak up and be heard, why is John Edwards mute?

Futhermore, why should Edwards be given a pass for being so... pussilanimous?

Tara Levicy always seems to have one or more anonymous defenders pop up whenever her name is mentioned on this blog. I've always found that very curious. Is she monitoring the blog? Is someone in the Admin offices at Duke Medical Center specially tasked to monitor the blog?

We know that an adamant defender promised some weeks ago to publish a formal rebuttal, penned by his SANE nurse wife, to KC's and Kendra's charges of incompetence or worse against Levicy. No rebuttal has ever been presented.

Yet of all the characters in the case mentioned on KC's blog, only Levicy gets immediately defended whenever she is attacked.

Perhaps her attorneys are trolling for people to say that Levicy committedcriminal behavior: they're not trying to prove their point?

Another of Tara's Trolls is also someone who is likely to be herboyfriend (or whatever) and hecan't spell, misspelling posts nearly every time he/she shows up.It's not nice to point out when someone occasionally misspells, but this particular troll is not especially competent with the English language, nor does he/she/it have anything especially intelligent to say,everything he/she/it writes being at the level of "yeah, you wish! Durhhh!" It has been suggested that he/she/it might be CGM herself.

KC knows, more than likely, if he's checking.

Levicy-minimizers (like JLS) aren'ttrolling: they're merely expressing their opinions like therest of us. It's ok to disagree, and JLS usually provides his interpretation of Levicy's actions, just like many of the rest of us.

Good to see Tara's Trolls so attentive,however, and even better that theyhaven't got a clue: it kinda proves the point that Levicy, while not actually driving the Nifong Express, and not being a mechanic for same, is at least a passenger,and one who apparently told Nifongwhere the bustops were.

just fyi, I think with effort a site administrator could pull down IP addresses, for what they're worth, but you gotta have some kind of registration system to link it to e-mail addresses. open portals like this generally have no connection at all to the e-mail system.

works as long as there's a diligent site administrator who's standing by to knock something off the blog when it crosses the line, but by and large it's designed to be truly anonymous. Free speech in its purest form, both the good aspects and the bad.

In April, I had offered to help "Mrs. DK" get her critique of Prof. Johnson's critique of Tara Levicy's conduct published. Instead, she and her husband ("DK") offered a series of questions and observations in a May Liestoppers thread that quickly grew acrimonious. (The issues raised will probably sound familiar.) I've had no response from Mrs. DK since then. That seems to be where the matter rests.

Sounds like she's buying into the old ultra-feminist Andrea Dworkin's claim that "all heterosexual intercourse is rape." although so many poor deluded straight women are so oppresses that they go along with it. In Dworkin's view, lesbian sex was the only true "consensual" sex. (oh, how I wish I was making that up)

Sad to say, unable to find love of any kind, Dworkin ate herself to death and is no longer around to berate us.

Good points all. I have no quarrel with those whose honest conviction impels them to defend Levicy. But I do find it odd when attempts are made to minimize her role to near irrelevance. She was a central player in making the case. There would have been no case had she not reported as she did on March 14th. The only debate, in my view, is whether her faulty analysis of CGM's condition on that morning was a result of simple incompetence and inexperience or deliberate professional misconduct in service to a political agenda.

Evidence tending to support the latter view surfaced in January, when we learned she modified her report to fit a prosecution favorable scenario wherein condoms had been worn by CGM's alleged attackers.

On the stand at Nifong's disbarment hearing, it was abundantly obvious that Levicy was stricken with terror. Why? If she's such an able professional whose conscience is clear about her actions vis-a-vis Crystal, she should have had nothing to worrry about.

Maybe we knew different hippies? ;>) The ones I knew were more interested in self-sufficiency and dropping out of society ... Jul 9, 2007 9:07:00 AM

I don't know where y'all got your hippies from, the ones I knew and know are running silicon valley companies, working in engineering professorships, teaching, raising kids and pulling out what's left of their hair thereby. Mostly they've become what you'd call solid citizens.

What is odd? You folk who try to crucify this nurse, do so on a regular basis. Why would a defense be odd? Many of the "facts" are disputed. Dr Manly has not entered into the debate in over a year - what makes you think she will now?Obviously, She has no complaint against Nurse Levicy = just non medical people and two nurses trying to be somebody.

Actually, the thread got terminated when DK was banned although his published posts did not seem nearly as vituperative as some of the regulars' responses. What seemed to send him over the edge was the public disclosure of his wife's name.

Now I admit he came here and pounded the drum on how Levicy had done nothing wrong and how his wife would provide proof, which was never forthcoming. BUT on liestoppers his position seemed to be that Levicy had done what every SANE is trained to do and that the whole breed is a menace. Now that is quite inconsistent with his position on this site and apparently utterly inconsistent with his wife's position, but it was a really interesting argument if sincere. I was sorry it was cut off before he had a chance to develop it and to demonstrate his sincerity.

To further explore the "Levicy Riddle," I would ask this question: Why, of all the Bar Hearing depositions, are we only missing Levicy's?

As a form of preemption, I will note that certain medical and other sensitive information can be masked out to avoid any privacy issues. If you have ever received FOIA responses or governmental replies to subpoenas, you probably know what I mean.

Is it because of all the deponents, she was the only one with really good attorneys? DUMC would have had an incentive to keep that depo under wraps.

I would also ask this question: Why do the Levicy trolls even bother? It almost seems like they want to attract attention to her. If not, that is the effect.

Yes. Of course, people make the occasional mistake in their spelling or grammar and sometimes even their grammer (unless she tends to bonk them on the head with her cane for errors.) But if those people care about persuading others, they work a bit on their posts. It is common sense, but also common courtesy.

I, too, was sorry (I was out of touch at the time that Liestoppers thread was active). That Liestoppers thread was a mix that didn't work out well. Earlier, Mrs. DK had told me that she aspired to focus on ideas, avoiding contention. That didn't happen.

A number of Liestoppers threads have highlighted issues with forensic/SANE nursing. Some of them discussed in detail by Kathleen Eckelt and 'Kethra':

* To whom does the SANE owe a duty? To the patient/(alleged victim? To a hypothetical defendant in a future case? To Law Enforcement/The Court? If there are multiple answers, what should happen when obligations conflict?

* Is a SANE an Expert, or a minimally-qualified evidence-gathering Technician?

* Does the concept of SANE lead to self-selection of women who are inherently biased towards the alleged victim and against the alleged rapist?

* Do nurses and Law Enforcement have the same view of a SANE's functions? (e.g. are all agreed on whether she can offer informed judgements in an area of expertise?)

It seems that how people view Tara Levicy's performance is partly a function of their opinions on these matters. In my opinion, the higher the standard for probity, expertise, and dispassionate judgement is placed, the worse Levicy's conduct appears. On the other hand, she and Dr. Manley did collect--apparently correctly--physical evidence that helped exonerate the three falsely-accused men.

He's a loser and all who know that fact are free to express it. He and his wife are frauds!------

I totally agree. So to all the Edward trolls, spend some time reading KC on Feb 2,07

1) More on Marcotte2) The Edwards-Marcotte Fiasco

Then maybe you'll see the connection. Take notice, if Obama made positive commets, and he's black, and not from NC you would think that Edwards who worked in the same law firm as one of the attroneys, would have shown some character.

To JeffM: Thanks for averting a potential mathematical stress disorder-related issue and for the words of wisdom. However, I can't help but feel that you sound like the first guy who sold me some weed!__________

"Tara's Trolls" -- priceless! There also appears to be one of "Linwood's Christian Soldiers" on the board too! What fun! __________

To amac: If a SANE received the appropriate schooling, and he or she had been practicing the craft for at least a couple of years, THEN that person might be qualified to provide an expert opinion in a court of law about how to gather evidence.

A nurse owes her duty to give the best care to her patient. She has no duty to publicly call LE or a DA liars - Levicy knew what we knew - The exam was negative for team DNA.Sane's are minimmaly qualified technicians - it is an 84 hour certification course.In the past, a Physician collected the materials with an RN assistant.Do the woman who self select themselves have a predispostion to believe an accusser? Maybe so - it has got to be a boring job. It is true the Manly/Levicy exam exonerated the team and defendents.Levicy is a minimal player and her name is only known due to two nurses trying to be somebody on these boards.

Sane nurses are expert in nothing, except to collect the materials and fill out the checklist. Other than dope Nifong, who would have them testify to anything but the WHo, What, Were, When and How did you collect the mateials. How many years of experience do you need to be a mateial collection technician?

We had Nifong conduction 79 interviews on TV making the case and assuring everyone that a rape occurred - we had all the mean talking heads denouncing the team -we had 88 Duke Professiors denouncing the team and racism.We had a march in front of the house and you all want to writee Levicy made the case?

Why did the report from that date mention so many of Nurse Tara's opinions, and why did the report state that the information was "written in by Dr. Manley and is therefore not a forensic finding since it was not from the Sane Nurse?"

So why bother to interview Levicy if she: A) didn't take the DNA samples herselfB) didn't write the report

Why not interview Dr. Manley, instead?

You guys are just too easy to dismiss, except that you don't even realize it.

If I wanted to extoll the virtues of those who set up innocent people(such as Mr. Elmostafa, who was arrested on trumped-up charges); strong-arming the weak and suppressing evidence;bullying people while claiming to be a Christian, and if I wished to sing praises to Linwood Wilson...I guess I'd be singing:

"I wanna beLinwood's Troll,I wanna beLinwood's TrollThat's the most important thing to me-ee."

But seriously...Actually, truth and mercy were important to Jesus; not so to the Pharisees - (who had early variations of NPD.) Also not so to Mikey and his henchmen, including Mr. Wilson, who are (apparently) equally merciless and without pity.

Yes, I'll pray for Mr. Wilson; and I'll pray that he never gets to intimidate another victim again.

Why should I admit that he can even sing. I've never heard him. Even so, I too have a voice. I've sung to the radio in my car for over twenty years and found that my ear has converged with tonal (almost) perfection. Or, perhaps, my radio has deteriorated to a sound equal to a catawalling that only I could ignore...as its singular cause.

Maybe, just maybe, the DPD did not interveiw Dr. Manly BECAUSE the report was signed in the wrong place and Levicy never corrected what was initially a fairly trivial error. (I know it is taking my life in my hands on this site, but I must ADMIT that I too have sometimes signed a form in the wrong box.) Not saying that Levicy never corrected the error, but it seems quite possible that she did not. In other words, it is POSSIBLE that Manly collected the evidence that exonerated the evidence while Levicy shot her mouth off. Sorry that that seems so difficult for you to comprehend.

And, btw, Levicy knew nothing about what were the results of the DNA tests when she first talked to the cops.

both Dr Manly and Levicy signed the sheet - perhaps in reverse order. Not fraud or a criminal offense. Certianly, the Doctor never complained about it. No, Levicy did not know the results, but the Gottlieb and Himan did when they went for the NTO. Nifong knew the results before his media barrage - I knew it is hard for non medicals to absorb but Levicy probably did not remember Crysatal's name an hour after she left Duke. Which is typical for medical personell in a busy ED.

I believe I said that signing in the wrong place was a trivial error. Please quote WHERE I said it was criminal or even fraudulent (not that fraud is not a crime.)

The doctor's failure to complain, if that is true and not mere unfounded speculation on your part, may mean that the doctor did not even realize the form had been signed incorrectly. Why should she have such a realization? The cops never talked to her, PERHAPS because Levicy said that the doctor had assisted Levicy rather than the reverse.

Your hypothesis is that Levicy did not remember the name of the first patient she worked on as a SANE one hour after she left work? And you know that how? It seems rather implausible; most people remember firsts for quite a while. By the way, my wife has been an ER nurse for many years, and she cares enough about her patients to remember a substantial amount about whom she cared for yesterday and even several days ago. Your evidence, other of course than your own personal experience, that most ER personnel are so uncaring as to remember nothing about any of their patients the moment they get in their car to drive home can be found where?

Thanks for your "Grand Unified Theory of Weed POTitics." You have a beautiful mind. ;)

___________

PART II --

To the "Tara Troll":

So, you've resorted to begging to keep Levicy out of prison?

When the criminal indictments come down, and they will come down, Himan or Gottlieb will start squealing like a pig. The first to squeal, of course, will get the lighter sentence.

One of the stories they will tell is that Tara found no evidence "consistent with rape." But, she agreed to say that she did.

Obviously, diffuse edema of the vaginal wall is consistent with NO gang rape.

Also, "blunt force trauma" has no basis in her SANE report or any other contemporaneous evidence.

These items of "evidence" were fabricated -- manufactured, if you will, by Levicy as her part in the criminal conspiracy to maliciously prosecute the students.

Her mens rea to join the conspiracy can be reasonably deduced from the fact of her many hours-long meetings with DPD and the DA's office, and from the fact of her ever-changing story. A story that changed to fit the unfolding criminal conspiracy.

Also, it only takes one "affirmative" act to become part of a criminal conpiracy. Levicy committed at least two.

______________

K.C. is bigger than Howard Stern! Gregory MOO

Note: Part II above is a rough draft for a play I'm writing. Any similarity to real people, living or dead, is coincidental. How about some peer review of my draft play? Should I include more vaginas in it? How about an unspeakable act of interspecies cruelty for dramatic effect?

The 5 to 9 "meeting" have been reduced to two - eleven months apart- under oath. Those long meeting do not exist. The BFt came from one of the non existent meeting. The only thing that matters is the exam documentation. Hearsay not allowed. Prison - malicious prosecution - this has got to be a joke.

Please, please take some time before posting. You sound ignorant. (And stop with the "lack of ideas" rant. Just do a little proofreading like the rest of us.)

The long meeting "do" (does)exist: January 10, 2007. There was a subsequent phone call on January 16from Levicy, changing/"clarifying" her testimony.

JLS: If you've read my analysis of the Levicy reports,you'll have read nothing at all about "our boys."I'm sure you're open-minded aboutwhether Levicy committed a crime or a tort. I'm not - (not, take note) - claiming either one; I'm merely stating that Levicy was a rider on the Nifong Express.

Levicy's ignorance perpetuated the case, because the report was on January of this year, not before the DNA was exposed. This was after Meehan's duplicity was exposed on the December 15 hearing.

The January report appears to be an intent to explain away the lack of DNA. The report doesn't wash - (nor does it wipe away with a towel!)

Note Levicy's ignorant addendum:

"Levicy stated that there are numerous reasons why semen is not found in a victim 1) Condoms were used 2) No ejaculation 3) It didn't happen."

Giving Levicy #3, we go back to the report of the night in question, when she (CGM) wasn't sure about whether or not condoms were used, "except in her mouth."In another interview, CGM complained about bad breath from the ejaculate. This is consistent with Levicy's interpretation and CGM's report during the SANE exam.

Why, then, would Tara conclude no condoms were used? There would have been DNA evidence from oral swabs.

Remember: this was a meeting on January 10, not April 9; it was widely known at that point that there was DNA,and that it wasn't from the accused.

Her fantasy that perhaps there was "no ejaculation" is really silly and ignorant, but not as ignorant as her reasons why,other than her addendum where she states that rape may not havehappened.

She reported seeing nosign of blood, either, something that makes the report incredible. Why is no blood important? Anal sex - (if you've read anything about the spread of AIDS) -almost always involves rectal bleeding; rectal rape would likely cause more than "diffuse edema," and the diffuse edema that was reported was on the vaginal walls, not the anus.

The "no ejaculation" theory -as noted - has already been deconstructed thoroughly, since DNA evidence of epithelium would likely be found, especially since CGM was taken straight to the hospital from the parking lot(and didn't shower)...(maybe for a week prior? Ughh.)

Don't confuse this "no ejaculation" theory with the "condom theory," as this is one of those independant reasons Miss Levicy uses to explain whyDNA was not found.

Levicy - to her credit - states that there is a 3rd possibility:"It didn't happen."

Remember:Levicy had a condom theory, a "no ejactuate" theory and a non-eventtheory. The first two are provably bogus.

As far as 2:03's "hearsay not allowed": the Levicy statement wasan interview with the DPD. It isconsidered evidence.

Now: does this prove that Levicy lied/perjured herself? We'll see.I'm not making that claim. I'm only stating that she was a passenger onthe Nifong Express, and gave directions to the driver.

That I think sums it up in a nutshell: Levicy was at least a happy passenger on the Nifong Express. Whether she was a member of the crew remains to be seen. As I suspect you agree, being stupid or prejudiced or even unprofessional is not a crime although being unprofessional enough may be a tort.

@ JLS

The importance of Levicy in this fiasco, assuming that she was not a participant in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, is to determine whether the whole SANE project is ideologically vitiated. What are ITS professional standards and do they make ANY legal or medical sense? Of course if she knew or should have known that she was aiding and abetting an obstruction of justice, then she should be prosecuted along with the other criminals involved. Based on the evidence to date, it seems murky to me whether her ideology and inexperience permitted her to be used by the DPD and Nifong in bolstering their frame-up, or whether she knowingly lied, etc. in order to send innocents to jail.

I can construct an argument that she was part of the crew of the Nifong Express, but an argument is not a proof. What is clear to me is that her conduct gave cover to Nifong et al. and so deserves investigation by someone other than DUMC, which is an interested party.

Hey Mac - Gottlieb stated before the GJ that the SANE nurse's REPORT confirmed " Consistant with Sexual Assualt" - not a comment. Gottlieb lied as the report did not confirm this at all. Where does that fit into the conclusion?

"Ms. Levicy stated that she kept notes of all her meetings and conversations and that she spoke with Investigator Himan on March 16, 2006and told Himan that her findings were "consistent with a sexual assault."'

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review